Well, a 6th edition pdf is now floating about is making all the news. I am not going to go into it all, simply because I don't find it interesting enough atm to read the whole thing and the chances of it being real are almost none. It is not hard to find and includes two files, the rulebook file and a codex update file.

The rulebook does look like it goes into many of details that we have heard earlier but there are some oddities in there as well. Such as not including Black Templar in the codex updates, nor Sister's of Battle. If you are interested in locating this you can go here and search for it, or simply google it. http://www.3plusplus.net/

As to yesterdays Tau rumor, I apologize for posting up a fake. Sites that have good reputations, like 3++ should not be avoided simply because of this. It is an excellent site, and while I think the post was in bad form, it doesn't take away from the author or the site.

This is a no drama site, AbusePuppy was simply having some fun, and came clean, so derogatory comments at AbusePuppy will not be allowed and will be deleted. His benefit to the overall community is larger than this.

-file origin is dated may 2011.-file has 129 pages. That's a lot.-file is dated in CEST time zone, Nottingham is WET (well, in may it's WEST).-it was updated yesterday by a greek on 4 shared.-Greeceland is in EET time zone.

To me looks like it has a fair 25% to be an old version, but I wouldn't of course put my money on it.

maybe they plan to drop BTs and SOBs?wouldn´t be so unpopulare to get rid of some of the many SM dexes... BTs could be in the next vanila dex...and sister don´t sell becaus of the lack of plastik so it would make more sence to revamp them completly at a later point and make them much more diffrent to SM dexes. Caus as of now the a army even if they had plastik troops would be very expensiv.

evasion is straight from 2nd ED and it made for rediculous arguments and long games... it would rebalance the game to the point that it is a diffrent game....this would be bad for the game and new players IMO

i want to see only some fixeing of rules that are being abuse like wound-allocation and ICs leaving.. joing squads for advantage. Maybe some buff to blast weaponsbut do not change a game that is working... cahnge the dexes that you f...ed up GW

Too much information to read all of it, but from what I read, it looks fake. Games Workshop wouldn't bring back evasion - as someone said, games would last forever, especially apocalypse. Also, power weapons give a 5+ invulnerable save? BS! Sounds like a marine player was a bit annoyed with his codex to me...

I can't say for certain it's legit, but whoever did it either has a serious inside line and incredible attention to detail, or is working from a true leak.

I read the whole thing cover to cover last night. It's very internally consistent and uses phrasing consistent with GWs rule writing style. If you look at the Adobe PDF info for the docs, it claims it was generated on 2011-05-27 and is even on A4 layout (as would be expected for a British company). If you look at the codexes released since then and the rumors for upcoming codexes, you see even more consistency. Tau are rumored to get a deep striking weapon platform? This supposed leak happens to have core system rules related to immobile vehicle-like structures and brand new rules to show off for deep striking. Preferred enemy on shooting oriented Necron Destroyers? The supposed new Preferred Enemy rule accounts for shooting in a way that matches the Destroyer fluff very well.

All in all, having read this with an eye towards playability, it seems very well done. If it is true, I will probably be happy to play 6th. If it's not, I could seriously see playing it over whatever GW did release. It solves a lot of the current community complaints with 5th, for sure.

I respect those who put effort into writing this 129-page document - if it is fake. It it it the real thing, well - had no time to read it from cover to cover yet, but there are really some good ideas in it. It seems too well worked out at first glance, too logical, too detailed to be a real fake.

Since I'm a Nidz player, I focused on the advantages Nidz could get from this, and wow! Even Pyrovores would be at least semi-useful with that Fire Sweep thingie.Evasion seems really awesome to me, finally tehre is difference in hitting an immobile tank with melta or shooting at something that has moved flat out and is on the other side of the map.

Power weapons having 5+ invu: I don't see this as in issue. Daemons already have this. Terminators aready have this. Nidz would have significant benefits from it (Warriors being finally usable and having chance to avoid hidden fists.)Multi-targeting would be awesome for Tervigons (cast FnP, shoot something else.)Deep striking and Reserves are simply awesome now. Having the ability to modify the reserver with multiple dice on one unit is really cool. Defensive fire just kiks ass. No more "I'll deep strike my Battlesuit with TL Flamers next to your gaunt squad and fry you to death without being able to retaliate". Hell, I really hope these things are somewhere close to 6th ed... These would solve SOO many issues 5th ed. currently has...

@Anonymous: Evade is not so strange and I see no more reason to get in to arguments about it than any other rule. The modifiers are simple and clear to apply, there are things that aid or penalize your Evade value. And when someone shoots at you, depending on your Evade value you are more or less prone to be hit.I think this is so much better than the old rules, now high BS gets better and units moving are harder to hit then units standing still.And 12” are now a really dangerous to stumble into facing the wrong opposition…

After reading through most of this, I'd say this ruleset simplifies a lot of things, eliminates a lot of dice rolls, and doesn't leave a lot of room for debate between players.

It's really solid... probably better than anything GW has made.

The only thing I don't really like, is that MCs are all basically S10 with 2D6 armour pen... On average, they'll be killing vehicles, even Land Raiders, no sweat. I don't even think their -1 evade makes up for that.

What is interesting to note about these pdfs, is that they were last modified May of last year... That's quite a long time to just keep fan-made material to oneself.

I disagree with you. MCs are already really easy to kill and with this long fangs and the like are now hitting them on a 2+ and wounding them on a 2+ and you can't even use FNP on them anymore against the missiles. Against Tau broadsides are looking at a 3+ re-rolled to hit, a 2+ to wound, and they deal double wounds to any T6 MC.

So essentially vehicles are tougher and MCs are even weaker than before.

Also, can't times be spoofed? IIRC some computers allow you to set the time, date, and timezone if you aren't connected to the internet.

But maybe S10 2D6 would justify the incredibly high point costs for current Tyranid MCs. Actually, they suddenly would become usable against vehicles. And, more resistant to tank shock. Whick is a badd baad mechanic in 5th ed. now considering a 35 pts Rhino can kill a Carnifex outright with tank shocking... (Death or Glory canturn out badly even with S9.)

Hmm... Monstrous creatures seem to be becoming a lot more powerful with no real drawbacks other than -1 evade. I expect we'll see a lot more daemon princes, greater daemons, C'tan shards, and nids. I'll wait and see how this turns out.

MCs should really have some sort of invu save or something... Rigid save or what is it called. Tyrants tend to go down in one turn, W4 is not that much anyway. Trygons with W6 are also easy to kill against a real shooty army. So MCs are nowhere near as tough as even the smallest tanks...

As they should be, considering their point costs I think. Trygon spam was the only viable option considering how they nerfed the Carnifex. Maybe it these rules stand, Carnifex broods will see the battlefield more often. And maybe - if the modell is released) the Tyrannofex will make an awesome tank hunter. We shall see.

As a nid player I do like the concept of eliminating that damn D6" run that caused so many assaults to fail even with Move Through Cover 3D6. Stealers would have a stable 16" assault range (6" for infantry, 2" for fleet, double for charge). And if I read it correctly, Defensive Fire will not affect them unless assaulting through cover. But then, thanks to 5+ Sv, they will fall - unless using that "everyone has grenades" Strategem. If I read the book correctly.And, umm, Thunderwolves have a flat 21" assault range? (7" move, triple for charging). Nice!

When you spend 700 pts, on a Land Raider, HQ, and squad just to see it all get gobbled up by a single 200 pt Trygon... that just popped up at out the ground... it doesn't seem very balanced.Lascannons on the Land Raider weren't even able to inflict a single wound.

I wish to play against such a Marine player with my Trygons. Usually my Trygons pop up from the ground, gets shot by Lascannons pretty badly (they wound on a 2+ with no armor save), gets assaulted by dudes that wield power weapons either with S8 or reroll - they kill the Trygon outright. Typically every AT weapon is pointed against Trygons as Nidz have no tanks. Because there is no assault after deep strike. So, IF Trygons survive all these, then they can hurt Land Raiders, yes. But against Terminators, I would never use them. Those 6 wounds are not too much against dudes with 20+ power weapon attacks - my experience.

Or, they might try to learn from it, adapt it, find the one who wrote it (it this is fake), give them a reasonable paycheque and ask them to be the leader of the rule writing team from now on.

If it is not fake, maybe it's an "official" fake and GW wants to see people's reactions to it - what should be added, what should be removed, etc. Consider it an "open beta test" maybe. It this is the truth, then well played GW, some minor tweaks and 6th ed will be awesome. Really awesome.

That's what I though when the first 6th edition rumors hit, even when it showed the assualt phase before shooting, as that kills a lot of armies, but I haven't read all the way through the 'leaked' version.

Assault before shooting is an interesting concept, I'm looking forward trying it. I did not finish the "leaked" book either, but there are really useful ideas in it. So, it it is an open beta test, the direction is good, yet minor tweaks are needed.

i didn't really like the idea of assaulting before shooting, which is contrary to what a real army would do. I'd rather shoot the crap out of a unit and take down their numbers before i finish them off in close combat

Yes, for DE, maybe. The rest are Marines with Meltas / Terminators / Power Weapons / Force Weapons. For Necrons, armor-removing Scarabs will deal with them. MCs aren't that brutally hard to remove and they cost much.

One minor flaw that I found with the leaked material: the DE Combat Drugs roll 1 (running with 3D6) does not change. (Or I did not find it.) Since running is not done by D6, but doubles the move distance, it is useless. I guess it would be "granting Bounding Leap" instead (as Hormagaunts have the same 3D6 running now and the errata has this for them). Imagine DE Hellions assaulting 27". Awesome :)

It's not really. The main problem is the fact that it's so Imperial dominated. DE and Necrons are ok, but the Xenos books are really hurt by a lack of good AP1 weapons like meltaguns and it makes wrecking vehicles really annoying. I've had my nid army take 4 turns to destroy a single vehicle before even with 4 hive guard and two t-fexes.

It focuses too much on Imperial forces, and Mech. Every flavour of Marines can take out Mech relatively easily, while Xenos suffer here greatly. Not to mention that many Xenos (eldar, Tau, Orkz, Daemons) are designed for 4th ed.) Nidz have no access to any AP1/2/3 Weapons (Zoanthropes don't count as AP1 since they are short ranged, short lived, can be countered by Psychic Hoods and are not reliable - and cannot multitarget. I'm aware of the AP2 small blast the Carnifex has, but who would ever use that? Besides that, only Hive Guards remain, and MCs in CC).

CC is limited as cover is so easy to get (and e.g. Nidz cannot have grenades) and one cannot consolidate into an assault.

Some forces have basic 24-30" guns, others (Eldar) are limited to 12"-18", and overpriced.

Uh thanks for pointing that out, absolutely correct. Truth to be told, I could not decide if I should put them along with the rest of the 3+ save dudes or with the Xenos. Then they were left out. But at least they are going to have a nice new codex this summer / fall it the rumors are true. However, your point stands.

There are some broken core game rules, such as cover...A Tyranid player, can place a Hive Tyrant with some Tyrant guard, and then have a unit of gaunts in front of them, giving the Hive Tyrant (an MC), a 4+ cover save, or a unit can hide at least 50% of it's models in some trees and get a 4+ cover save.

Never understood people's problems with vehicles. THey may be harder to kill then things, but they have other downsides. They can be made useless for a turn. They can be immbolised. They can have weapons destroyed. They have to remain stationary to shoot everything, which means they are hit automatically in combat. They have no assault ability, and so most of them have little potential for actually inflicting a lot of damage...MC's might be a little easier to wound... but at least they can't be instant killed. They don't really have any of the drawbacks that vehicles do. They are generally more effective at killing infantry than vehicles, and they also get the added 2D6 AP against vehicles...

Most codices are boken too... and they encourage you to just spam things. Makes for uninteresting army lists. How often do you see Devastator squads with anything but missile launchers? Or how about regular Chaos Space marines? No one takes them.

There's some over powered wargear everywhere... Stormshields giving a 3+ inv save? I can understand some guy who already has a 4+ save getting it bumped up... but 3++ is too much for mass infantry, especially when they already have a 2+ regular armour save.

The game is also still using the same silly to-hit chart for combat.

Luckily for me, my gaming group has a pretty even split of imperial and xenos/chaos players.

"MC's might be a little easier to wound... but at least they can't be instant killed."

Not entirely true. I've had Trygons/Carnifex/Tervigons insta-killed by a single Grey Knight with a Force Weapon more times than I care to remember. Also, armies like the Dark Eldar butcher Monstrous Creatures near instantly, what with their Speed+Initiative+Attacks+Agonizers and the almost complete lack in Tyranid Invulnerable Saves.

After reading the multi-targeting special rule, the same weapon cannot be fired more than once per shooting phase. So a multi-targeting of 3 lets you shot 3 different weapons from the vehicle, 6 if you don't move in the movement phase

exactly, and the space wolves "Bjorn" has also a similar rule, stating bjorn are allowed to reroll the roll for deployment zone or something like that.

i was confused over the rumors saying it was going to be a bidding system for first turn when they came, but looking closer on the actual writing of bjorns rule, made me hope there was some kind of actual thinking behind all this

Email to Join the Faeit 212 Blog Exchange

Search The Exchange

Loading...

World View

Subscribe Now

Subscribe for Exclusive News and Rumors Straight to Your Inbox.

Page Views

Faeit 212 Youtube

Loading...

Copyright

This website is completely unofficial and is in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited. Warhammer, Warhammer 40k, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf Logo, and all associated markes, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units and illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either TM and or Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2010, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

Data Collection

We Collect no data about you save for that captured by a cookie to provide us with anonymous information about site navigation.

Cookies are small pieces of text information created by websites and stored on your computer. We only use cookies to provide us with anonymous information about site navigation. No other information is stored in cookies, and cookies are not used for any other purpose. You should also be aware that whilst the above paragraph describes our use of cookies, some advertisers on this site may also collect data using cookies. The use of cookies and/or web beacons to collect data is used in the ad serving process. We do not have access to this data. Google uses the DART cookie to serve ads to our users based on their previous visits to our sites and other sites on the internet. Users may opt out of the use of DART cookies by visiting Google Ad and content network privacy policy at
http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Protection

We will not retain any details that you provide, except for your email address if you contact us and this will never be disclosed to third parties. Customers are free to opt out of the news services by following the instructions on the bottom of each news email if subscribed to.

Links

This website contains links to other websites. Please be aware that we are not responsible for the privacy practices of other websites. We encourage you, when you leave this website, to read the privacy statements/policies of each and every website you visit, as this particular privacy applies solely to this particular website

Privacy Policy

We respect your right to privacy. None of the information the site collects is passed on to other parties, except when required as part of the business services we provide for you, or as required under United States Law.